All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

How comfortable does it make you feel to kill a chicken when you know that it did not want to die?
On the other hand, there is no way to live without killing something... even washing and breathing kills bacteria.

What you describe is animal "welfare", which is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough, I believe.

Animal rights means that I believe that animals, just like humans, have inherent rights, simply because they exist and are "subjects of a life" (to use a Tom Regan's term for it). IOW, animals, like humans, are conscious critters.

When we talk about human rights we usually mean things like freedom of speech, freedom from harm by others, freedom to travel, etc.

Some quick points that I don't want to argue specifically, but want to throw out there for your consideration:

You may not need to eat animals, but I do. That is, I need to eat meat more than you (or I) need electricity, from my perspective. This really isn't up for debate, unless you take the absolutist perspective that we should never impinge on the rights of animals, which you say you don't. You have a certain set of criteria whereby you determine that some things require electricity, and you are unwilling to give up those things, so you say you need electricity. I have a similar set of criteria for eating meat, and I hold those criteria to be more important than those for electricity. It becomes a matter of what is important to whom; it is not an objective statement of fact about which is actually more of a "need," except in regard to an individual's own beliefs and values. For you to say I don't need meat is arbitrary and subjective, and, given that, incorrect, since I disagree.

To put it another way: it would be correct, perhaps, for you to say that you don't believe that I need to eat meat, but I can assure you that given any criteria that allows you to need electricty, that I need to eat meat.

You improperly frame the issue as animal suffering vs. human pleasure, while there may be neither suffering on their part nor pleasure on ours. I think mentioning either one does disservice to your cause, as though if I can kill them without causing suffering, then it's OK. I don't think you actually believe that. The example of a chicken is apt: I don't believe chickens suffer in any way we would actually call suffering. I don't think they are capable of suffering any more than an eggplant is. Even if they were, we could still kill them without suffering.

Also a question: I don't understand why an animal has a right to live free from human interference; they apparently have no right to live free from the interference of other animals, right? If a zebra has no right to live free from being eaten by a cheetah, why does a deer have a right to live free from being eaten by a man? Is it because of this apparently arbitrary sense of what humans "need" (cf. point 1)?

In response to #1, you have no _biological_ need to eat meat. That's what I meant by need.

But yes, I don't need electricity based on that definition of need either. I don't think I said that I did, though. I _want_ electricity and I think it can be gotten without causing any significant harm.

1. You improperly frame the issue as animal suffering vs. human pleasure, while there may be neither suffering on their part nor pleasure on ours. I think mentioning either one does disservice to your cause, as t

I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.

And I did not say they are incapable of suffering, I said they are incapable of experiencing what we know as suffering. They

I think meat can be gotten without significant harm. Further, I do have a biological need for meat, because I can't eat most vegetables, let alone those fake meat products. They taste bad. So if I don't eat meat, I won't be healthy, because I will be severely malnourished. I very much do have a biological need to eat meat, and you are incapable of reasonably saying that I don't.

Well, this is one of the sillier statements I've ever seen when debating animal rights issues. What can I say? I think you're

I can't eat most vegetables because they taste really bad to me. It's that simple. Am I capable of digesting it? Yes. But incapable of eating it. My cat is the same with many foods she is capable of digesting. You think it's silly? Tough nuts. It's my taste buds I am protecting, not yours.

Second, this: "I believe that animals should be free from suffering, and that human interference leads to suffering for animals. That's my case." Fine.

Oh, and about vegetables, I thought I might be able to take them intravenously, but I have this thing about needles; I could take a pill, but then I don't get the roughage I so desperately need. Bah! I'm stuck requiring meat. Bring on the cows, Little Billy!

Its not illogical, it simply comes from a first principle which you disagree with. My first principle, as stated, was that human interference with animals is unethical. Therefore, when given a choice (which we always are in this particular case, regardless of your culinary tastes), we should make the ethical choice, which is to not interfere.

As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my no

As to whether or not you have an obligation not to eat animals. Of course you have such an obligation. Why would you think I believe otherwise? Just because my notion of rights is arbitrary doesn't mean I think yours has any validity, nor would I expect you to feel any differently.

What you expect is nonsense. Once again, you expect me to think that you're an immoral sap just because you think I am. I'm sorry that I can't oblige you. I actually don't expect anything of the sort. I expect different thi

But just because I believe that doesn't change what I want from others. Look, I think killing a person is unethical. That's an arbitrary belief.

But it is something that most of the people in this country agree with, and so we have laws forbidding murder, right?

Nope! In actual fact, we have laws forbidding murder because we have codified in our country's law the idea that it is not arbitrarily unethical, but that it is absolutely unethical, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable righ

Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it? To illustrate: making a person of color property worth 3/5 as much as a white man is pretty arbitrary, but it was in the Constitution. (The fact that they used their religion to justify this doesn't make it any more or less true.) Fortunately, it was changed, too.

You're right that to compare in our law (as it stands right now) the killing of a an animal and a person is unreasona

Well, the fact that people decided this 200+ years ago based on what they thought doesn't make this any less arbitrary, does it?

It does in the sense of why the law says murdering people is wrong, yes: in that it is not merely the opinion of a majority of people that makes it illegal, it is the very basis of our government that makes it so. If you take that away, then you take away the basis for the Constitution, which is to provide a government that exists to protect the rights of humans.